In defense of the E-5

nick_webster · Feb 4, 2011

As a working pro who does take ( very good ) chuck-carry-egg photos for a living, and I believe you even covered a real football game

, he might take you more seriously than me. When I said pros don't use flash he regarded it as the most amusing post he'd ever seen on DPR, and even posted a link to spectators using flash to "prove" his point.

Thanks for your input Doug,

Nick

Klarno · Feb 4, 2011

Raist3d said:
Tony Hall said:

Let's say the 7D has a one stop advantage while the newer K-5 and D7000 have a two stop advantage. The Zuiko zooms are generally about a stop faster than their APS-C equivalents. So, that gives the newest, state of the art cameras a one stop advantage and the 7D no advantage.

Click to expand...

This isn't true at all - unless you are buying and comparing with SHG glass only for the most part. That can be fine but then you are forced to buy $1700-$2500 USD lenses. That's a big jump. And it's still not true for some primes.

Tony is right, and you don't even have to buy SHG to prove it. Comparing 4/3 HG zooms to the most comparable APS-C zooms, the 4/3 zooms are typically 2/3 to 1 1/3 stops faster (an average of 1 stop faster through the range, and an additional third of a stop faster on the long end where it counts the most)--where 4/3 HG lenses are f/2.8-3.5, APS-C lenses at similar prices tend to be f/3.5-5.6 (there are a few exceptions, like the Zuiko 12-60 f/2.8-4.0, Canon 17-85 f/4.0-5.6, and Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, but as a whole things tend to average out).

Downside is that Oly's SG zooms are f/3.5-5.6, f/4.0-5.6 or f/4.0-6.3, and the APS-C lenses are typically about the same, so APS-C does still have the 1 stop format advantage when it comes to the SG pricepoint.
--
http://www.photoklarno.com

Gary Stallones · Feb 4, 2011

--

'Landscape photography is the supreme test of the photographer - and often the supreme disappointment. '

Ansel Adams

papillon_65 · Feb 4, 2011

Klarno said:
Raist3d said:

Tony Hall said:

Let's say the 7D has a one stop advantage while the newer K-5 and D7000 have a two stop advantage. The Zuiko zooms are generally about a stop faster than their APS-C equivalents. So, that gives the newest, state of the art cameras a one stop advantage and the 7D no advantage.

Click to expand...

This isn't true at all - unless you are buying and comparing with SHG glass only for the most part. That can be fine but then you are forced to buy $1700-$2500 USD lenses. That's a big jump. And it's still not true for some primes.

Click to expand...

Tony is right, and you don't even have to buy SHG to prove it. Comparing 4/3 HG zooms to the most comparable APS-C zooms, the 4/3 zooms are typically 2/3 to 1 1/3 stops faster (an average of 1 stop faster through the range, and an additional third of a stop faster on the long end where it counts the most)--where 4/3 HG lenses are f/2.8-3.5, APS-C lenses at similar prices tend to be f/3.5-5.6 (there are a few exceptions, like the Zuiko 12-60 f/2.8-4.0, Canon 17-85 f/4.0-5.6, and Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, but as a whole things tend to average out).

Downside is that Oly's SG zooms are f/3.5-5.6, f/4.0-5.6 or f/4.0-6.3, and the APS-C lenses are typically about the same, so APS-C does still have the 1 stop format advantage when it comes to the SG pricepoint.

Even that is not necessarily the case as many APS-C lenses need stopping down before they become sharp enough. Even the SG lenses can produce decent results wide open.

Klarno said:
--
http://www.photoklarno.com

--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Brent Lossing · Feb 4, 2011

just so I am clear - aren't you the person that has to manual focus in low light because of your camera's unpredictable focus?

Raist3d said:
then because the low light I have been in really points to higher iso with moving subjects. I think we discussed one of those experiences before, and I can tell you it was definitively much more difficult light than what you were making it to be.

Also, you do have the SHG lenses, so you are forced in 4/3rds to buy those big expensive lenses to do this. Now, those lenses are great as they should be at the price they are but there are other options that cost far less with superb lenses too.

Update: on 2nd thought, let me not be that hasty. I will agree with you many situations will be ok with the F2 of the SHG lenses (if only that 14-35 could AF well also, that is). But at least the other SHG seem to cut it. That's still not as easy and versatile as some other options in lower light but to some degree it dampens the E-5 high iso issue.

I still contend there are other situations that it will be harder. At that point, when you are spending so much on lenses, you have to wonder if there are comparable options given the cash you are spending. imho of course.

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

--
Thanks,
brent

http://lossing.zenfolio.com/

Brent Lossing · Feb 4, 2011

MichaelKJ said:
Well, DPR complained about the K-5's price but still put it in the semi-pro category and gave it an 83%.

Speaking of price point though, the K-5 is a very expensive camera right now

I think Nikon did a clever thing with the D7000 - they used 2 mag plates instead of a complete mag shell. Then they market it as a mag body and the other mfgs are compared as if they are the same.

jeff zwier · Feb 4, 2011

thats nice , im glad you think that way but i personally know people who use fill flash in their sports photography all the time. these guys actually know what fill flash is as compared to people who confuse fill flash with the blinding lights of regular flash that people are not allowed to use. its all radio controlled and the light is brought up to the standard of the natural light enough to freeze the subject. It doesnt destract the players and its used in alot of photos you would think were just shot in natural light. If you think flash photography is not used in professional sports you are simply ignorant.

nick_webster said:
As a working pro who does take ( very good ) chuck-carry-egg photos for a living, and I believe you even covered a real football game , he might take you more seriously than me. When I said pros don't use flash he regarded it as the most amusing post he'd ever seen on DPR, and even posted a link to spectators using flash to "prove" his point.

Thanks for your input Doug,

Nick

jeff zwier · Feb 4, 2011

http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithpyt/tags/sportsflash/

here are just some examples of how using flash in sports photography completely blows away using natural light.

glanglois · Feb 4, 2011

Re: candles. I don't recall hearing that in America and decided it sounded very British. Thanks!

PS: no comment on the issue at hand. I'll leave that exercise to the student ....

illy said:
papillon_65 said:

...this one's going to get messy.

--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

unfortunately all these threads seem to criticise other manufacturers, a case of blowing others candles out to make your own burn brighter?
--
Maggie Thatcher, your boyz took a hell of a beating

win39 · Feb 4, 2011

DPReview's conclusion that it is for fans seems eminently reasonable, and kind. They did not say what they were really thinking.

Unfortunately it is like the E-1 in that the target had moved on by the time Oly got to market. This camera is like a 4/3 version of the D300 including features, price and weight. A near 4 year old model. The D300s will be replaced momentarily.

You would have thought Oly could have gotten their hands on the less noisy 16MP sensor in the Panasonic GH2, but I suspect Oly did not want it because development was already locked in to the old sensor and was not flexible enough to adapt. Again.

You realize, don't you, that this is probably the last Olympus DSLR? Been there, done that with Olympus.

nick_webster · Feb 4, 2011

See if you can see any of the pitch side photographers using any form of flash, even during the goal celebrations when it would be less distracting than during actual game play. For extra amusement see if you spot if any are using tripods

I've never said that no sports photographers use flash, only that I've not seen any. I was disputing your argument that instead of using higher ISOs sports photogs just use tripods and flashes. It's true that I don't know how all sports are photographed, and I've never claimed otherwise - you on the other hand linked to a video that disproved your point but are continuing to argue your case ... What does this suggest about your own level of ignorance, or just sheer pigheadedness ?

Nick

nick_webster · Feb 4, 2011

I looked at a few of those and they all looked to be staged shots with friends who would be expecting to have the flash go off. This is a very different scenario than real sporting events

Nick

bobn2 · Feb 4, 2011

jeff zwier said:
Possibly the funniest thing i have ever read on Dpreview to this day. the only sports where flash is frowned upon is tennis and golf , only one of them can be considered a sport as far as it goes for capturing movement.

nick_webster said:

I've not seen sports photographers using flash - far too distracting and they'd be thrown out of the venue or risk being attacked by the sportsmen/women. Nor have I ever seen one using a tripod. Monopods yes, but tripods are rather bulky and more difficult to follow action,

Click to expand...

Well, here's a thing. Here you are with your 300/2.8, 50m from the action (it's in midfield) with an FL-50 fitted. That takes 400 ISO to give you f/2.8. Plus a dark background and superbright foreground. And I just wonder whether the flash from that thing's going to be seen in the same light as a GN10 built-in. Probably why you don't see so many flashes used by the pros round the pitch.
--
Bob

bobn2 · Feb 4, 2011

Brent Lossing said:
as ISO goes up:
DR goes down
Color Sensitivity goes down
Tonal range goes down

Higher iso may be able to get the shot - but it should be the exception, not the rule.

There are times where high iso is preferred (subject moving, low light, can not use flash) but it is at the expense of overall IQ.

Well, it's not really 'as ISO goes up', it's 'as total light in the image goes down'.

So, you can't compare ISO with ISO on different size sensors in terms of expected output quality. They give the same exposure, but the same exposure gives different total light.
--
Bob

bobn2 · Feb 4, 2011

jeff zwier said:
thats nice , im glad you think that way but i personally know people who use fill flash in their sports photography all the time. these guys actually know what fill flash is as compared to people who confuse fill flash with the blinding lights of regular flash that people are not allowed to use. its all radio controlled and the light is brought up to the standard of the natural light enough to freeze the subject. It doesnt destract the players and its used in alot of photos you would think were just shot in natural light. If you think flash photography is not used in professional sports you are simply ignorant.

nick_webster said:

As a working pro who does take ( very good ) chuck-carry-egg photos for a living, and I believe you even covered a real football game , he might take you more seriously than me. When I said pros don't use flash he regarded it as the most amusing post he'd ever seen on DPR, and even posted a link to spectators using flash to "prove" his point.

Thanks for your input Doug,

Nick

Click to expand...

Fill flash doesn't address the problem of not having enough light, it just addresses the problem of too contrasty light.

--
Bob

jeff zwier · Feb 4, 2011

thats if you just looked up the definition on google in a desperate attempt to gain knowledge on the subject, in actual practice (ie photography) it can be used for many things , one of them being freezing a subject in a dark enviroment while keeping the ambient backround light normal

bobn2 said:
jeff zwier said:

thats nice , im glad you think that way but i personally know people who use fill flash in their sports photography all the time. these guys actually know what fill flash is as compared to people who confuse fill flash with the blinding lights of regular flash that people are not allowed to use. its all radio controlled and the light is brought up to the standard of the natural light enough to freeze the subject. It doesnt destract the players and its used in alot of photos you would think were just shot in natural light. If you think flash photography is not used in professional sports you are simply ignorant.

nick_webster said:

As a working pro who does take ( very good ) chuck-carry-egg photos for a living, and I believe you even covered a real football game , he might take you more seriously than me. When I said pros don't use flash he regarded it as the most amusing post he'd ever seen on DPR, and even posted a link to spectators using flash to "prove" his point.

Thanks for your input Doug,

Nick

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Fill flash doesn't address the problem of not having enough light, it just addresses the problem of too contrasty light.

--
Bob

Brent Lossing · Feb 4, 2011

bobn2 said:
Brent Lossing said:

as ISO goes up:
DR goes down
Color Sensitivity goes down
Tonal range goes down

Higher iso may be able to get the shot - but it should be the exception, not the rule.

There are times where high iso is preferred (subject moving, low light, can not use flash) but it is at the expense of overall IQ.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not really 'as ISO goes up', it's 'as total light in the image goes down'.

So, you can't compare ISO with ISO on different size sensors in terms of expected output quality. They give the same exposure, but the same exposure gives different total light.

Hey Bob - long time no talk. Hope all is well with you.

I was just getting at just because one can crank the ISO up on the camera - it does not come without penalty. If you are trying to get the highest quality image increasing the light (either through lowering iso w/ longer shutter, flash, etc) is better regardless of the sensor size.

rovingtim · Feb 4, 2011

Another photographic expert, I see.

Any shot taken at a distance with a flash near the camera will give you red eye. Any shot taken at a distance with a flash near the camera will give you dreadful lighting.

Fill flash doesn't work at a distance.

Fill flash doesn't speed up the shutter speed, it only balances the light. That's what it is for. You still need high ISO in poor light.

In NBL the photographers wire up the entire place with flash and then fire away. So, yes, it can be done.

However, most sport is not done this way and unless you've tried to shoot moving objects in less than bright sunny conditions, you'll never now the need for high ISO.

As other manufacturers cameras improve, they can produce shots without flash (superior AF and ISO) that other cameras simply cannot reliably capture. This gives these pros an advantage against anyone using less capable equipment.

Most sport shots are taken at high ISO in whatever the light is available. Some aren't. Just because some don't need high ISO, it doesn't mean that all don't need high ISO.

Any other expert advice you would like to give us?

Tony Hall · Feb 4, 2011

Interesting comparison. I find ISO 1600 to be just fine on the E-5. It starts to loose me at about 3200. The 7D lost me at about 6400. For my tastes, the 7D seems to have a one stop advantage in ISO performance.

--

Tony

bobn2 · Feb 4, 2011

Brent Lossing said:
bobn2 said:

Brent Lossing said:

as ISO goes up:
DR goes down
Color Sensitivity goes down
Tonal range goes down

Higher iso may be able to get the shot - but it should be the exception, not the rule.

There are times where high iso is preferred (subject moving, low light, can not use flash) but it is at the expense of overall IQ.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not really 'as ISO goes up', it's 'as total light in the image goes down'.

So, you can't compare ISO with ISO on different size sensors in terms of expected output quality. They give the same exposure, but the same exposure gives different total light.

Click to expand...

Hey Bob - long time no talk. Hope all is well with you.

Pretty good, thanks.

Brent Lossing said:
I was just getting at just because one can crank the ISO up on the camera - it does not come without penalty. If you are trying to get the highest quality image increasing the light (either through lowering iso w/ longer shutter, flash, etc) is better regardless of the sensor size.

As you know, my view is that you always need the maximum exposure you can get subject to your pictorial constraints, dealing with any given camera. So, we agree there, just looking from a slightly different direction. The thing is though that this ISO discussion is comparative. ISO 200 on a E-5 gives the same total light as ISO 800 on a FF camera or ISO 500 on a Canon 1D. In the end it's just not the camera for low light situations, seems very good in bright light, though.
--
Bob

In defense of the E-5

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Active member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts